1 2025:CGHC:52798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 946 of 2025 1 - M/s Virat Devcon Private Limited (Wrongly Mentioned In Particulars As M/s Vireat Devcon), Plot No. 15, Hockey Hut Adarsh Nagar, Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Director, Mrs. Manju Mahobiya, D/o Shri Payare Lal Mahobiya, Aged About 38 Years, R/o H. No. 509, Ga Marar Para, Durg, Chhattisgarh 491001 2 - Mrs. Manju Mahobiya D/o Shri Payare Lal Mahobiya Aged About 38 Years Director Of The M/s Virat Devcon Private Limited, R/o H. No. 509, Ga Marar Para, Durg, Chhattisgarh 491001 3 - Shri Ratna Pansari S/o Shri Prahlad Prasad Tamboli Aged About 39 Years Director Of The M/s Virat Devcon Private Limited R/o Jamat Para, Ward No. 22, H. No. 196 Near Hanuman Shitla Mandir, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Registrar Of Companies Chhattisgarh, At Office 1st Floor, Late Ashok Pingle Bhawan, Municipal Corporation, Nehru Chowk, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur, (C.G.) 495001 ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order Sheet 29/10/2025 Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2025, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Special Case (Company Act) No. 02/2019, whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the complainant to adduce further evidence before charge, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the applicants/accused. 2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the scope of interference under revisional jurisdiction is limited to cases involving jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity committed by the trial court. 3. The complainant, Registrar of Companies filed a complaint case before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bilaspur under Section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, along with a list of witnesses. A copy of complaint is filed as Annexure A/2. After filing of the complaint, the learned trial Court recorded the statements of the complainant's witnesses and registered the case as Special Case (Company Act) No. 02/2019 issuing summons to the accused. Upon appearance, the accused were granted bail and the matter was fixed for evidence before charge on 19.10.2023. Subsequently, after a lapse of more than one year, the complainant’s witness namely Nikhil Jasrotiya was examined on 07.11.2024. Thereafter, the complainant closed his evidence before 3 charge, and the matter was fixed for arguments before charge on 4.12.2024. It is submitted that thereafter the complainant did not advance arguments for a considerable period. However, after about one year and four months, on 05.04.2025, the complainant filed an application seeking permission to produce another witness in support of the complaint. The applicants/accused submitted their written reply opposing the said application, contending that once the evidence before charge was closed, no further opportunity ought to have been granted to the complainant. After hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 allowed the complainant's application thereby granting permission to lead additional evidence before charge. 4. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order impugned. The trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously in the interest of justice to enable the complainant to substantiate the allegations before framing of charge. 5. The purpose of permitting evidence before charge is to afford an opportunity to the complainant to establish the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence. The discretion exercised by the trial court to allow further evidence in such circumstances does not amount to any abuse of process of miscarriage of justice 6. Contention of the applicants that the complainant had once closed his evidence and hence was precluded from leading further evidence cannot be sustained in law. The closure of evidence before charge does not operate as an absolute bar particularly when the trial court considers additional evidence necessary for a just decision at the precharge stage. 4 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bilaspur suffers from no infirmity either in law or on facts warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge